9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents on 22.07.2008, but without any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondents discontinued his services w.e.f. 06.02.2009. Counsel submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by way of filing an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947") before the Conciliation Officer. Counsel submits that the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appropriate Government vide impugned order dated 05.07.2010 on the pretext that he was employed with the respondents for a period of 85 days only and he could not substantiate his claim for further employment with any documentary evidence. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner submitted an application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 before the Conciliation Officer stating therein that he was engaged on the post of Jalsewak by the respondents on 22.07.2008 and his services were discontinued without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing by the respondents, vide order dated 06.02.2009. Several grounds were raised by the petitioner including non-compliance of the provisions contained under Section 25G of the Act of 1947, while terminating the services of the petitioner. Reply to the aforesaid application was submitted by the respondents and an objection was taken therein that the petitioner had hardly worked for only 85 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion whether the person raising the dispute was a workman or not, cannot be decided by the Government, in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act. This dispute is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court after its reference. 9. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent in the case of M/s Haryana State FCCW Store Ltd (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in the said matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of term of the workman under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, while in the instant matter, the petitioner has not raised any ground of violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. In the instant matter, the issue of Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
